Leonardo DiCaprio to be Calvin Candie in Tarantino's DJANGO UNCHAINED?

Hey folks, Harry here - and the trades are reporting that Leonardo DiCaprio is in talks to play the rather awesome character of Calvin Candie. I find that fascinating because reading the character made me think of this rather awesomely despicable Calvin as an older man. I know Leo isn't the kid from TITANIC anymore, but I thought of Calvin as being someone in their late 50's or 60's. Funny how one's imagination can take you. I really can't wait to see how the rest of this plays out - because this is the best script that Tarantino has written to date I feel. Absolutely love DJANGO UNCHAINED.

Don't expect any of the rumors to necessarily be true. Remember, Warren Beatty was going to be Bill for a real long time before Tarantino honed in on David Carradine.

Leo has NEVER played a villain (but he'd be amazing at it), he seems to make a point to work with the best filmmakers in modern cinema (Scorsese, Allen, Scott, Nolan, Cameron, Boyle, Spielberg), I will be PISSED if this turns out to be nothing more than a rumor. Leo's got the very "deliberate" acting style that can perfectly suit Tarantino's extremely deliberate writing style. This better be true.

Di Caprio has gone from being type-casted as a kid wise beyond his years (titanic, basketball diaries, the aviator, catch me if you can, et al), to being type-casted as a tortured man on a mission (inception, shutter island, revolution road). The only good news is no one can reinvent an actors persona like QT. So this IS good news :)

QT's casting choices are getting weirder and weirder...Calvin Candie is a southern, flamboyant, womanizing, but charming scumbag...it begs to be played by a character actor, not some movie star who generally turns in sub par performances. QT is getting obsessed with movie stars and is losing his focus. Brad Pitt in Inglorious wasn't horrible, but it wasn't memorable either, and it seems to have started some strange trend in QT's films.

But, thinking about it, if Leo can really turn up the charisma on this, then he could do a pretty good job.</p>
</p>
It's funny... I read the first half of the script when Will Smith was pegged as Django. Then, when I was half way through, Idris Elba moved to the front running as Django. In my mind, Will Smith would be a better Django that Elba.</p>
</p>
Also.... Brad Pitt was great in IB.

He has always worked (or obsessed, as you put it) with actors who are or were big movie stars at some point. Harvey keitel might be the exception, but was big enough a name to get Reviour Dogs made. Bruce Willis in Pulp Fiction. Robert De Niro in Jackie Brown. Daryl Hannah in Kill Bill. Kurt Russell in Death Proof and as you point out, Brad Pitt in Inglourious Basterds. Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained, doesn't seem out of place in the slightest.

But I've never been able to dig DiCaprio. Everyone always says we need to forget Titanic and watch how serious he is now, but I think he's the motherfucker that needs to forget Titanic. Every single goddamn movie he's done since 1997 it seems like he's fucking screaming "I AM NOT THE KID FROM TITANIC ANYMORE!! AAAAARRRGGGHHH!!! SEEEEEEEERIOUS ACTOOOOOORR!!"
<br><p>
Guy needs to fuck off with that shit. When it stops feeling like he's trying so hard, the kid's definitely got some talent. But seriously, quit with the pubic hair goatee. Looks like a teenage Burger King drive-through attendee. And stop with the fucking tough guy roles. I realize he's buff in real life and could definitely kick my ass. But he just isn't a badass on screen. Does not feel natural. Come on, Tom Hanks could probably kick my ass, but it would have been bullshit for him to have the lead in Blood Diamond, too. DiCaprio rarely chooses movies appropriate to his look and voice, and frankly he isn't versatile enough to fake it like Gary Oldman does.
<br><p>
So yeah. Unless Tarantino's written the character to be a whiny sounding 35 year old boy with a teenager's pubic hair goatee, my oh so very important opinion is to keep DiCaprio the fuck away from this flick.
<br><P>
That is all.

Best news of the day...
12 hour work day...
6 hours online homework...
hopefully 1-2 hours of writing b4 I got to get 2 sleep to get up at 6...
I can't fucking wait....
TARANTINO WESTERN... thought I'd never see the day been waiting since NATURAL BORN KILLERS...
It's cool that DICAPRIO and TARANTINO get to work togther since INGLORIOUS BESTERDS didn't work out...

...combined with the utter bullshit of NOT reviewing the movie script.
Harry actually snuck into movie screenings dressed as a woman and saw an early rough cut of THE PHANTOM MENEACE in a hotel room.
Now, he can't even review a Tarantino script.
The Catwoman "photo"
The Superman "photo"
Stories breaking WEEKS after everyone else.
Seriously, what's the point of this site anymore?
Answer: TALKBACKERS
WE are the only reason why this site is still up.
Which makes the writers of this site's obivous condescension of us even more pathetic; Notice how they're ending their articles now?: "Thoughts?", "What do you guys think?", etc. Its as if they're the mature parents asking the opinions of children, knowing they'll either belittle or ignore them anyway.
How about doing script reviews again?
How about writing NEGATIVE reviews without kissing the ass of the film makers, trying to save face?
"Classic TV Clip of the week"?
"Nordling remembers _____"?
"Set pic of the day"?

Seriously - this movie's going to be incredible.
And I'm pretty sure, from the character and dialogue, that he's casting Christoph Waltz as Dr. King Schultz, the bounty hunter.
The script that's leaked is his FINAL draft, from April - and it's written so well that reading it is like watching the film.
What a treat.
Damn.

I thought I read QT had him in mind but then decided to go with an actual German. Guess I'm just pointing out that QT has an itch to cast Leo as a villain, and I can envision Leo in this role more than I can as Hans Landa (but that may simply be due to how wholly Waltz owns that role).

...Tarantino's next shitfest will be either a shemale revenge flick or a gay man revenge flick.
We've had Jews (Inglorious Basterds), Teenage Women (Deathproof), 30-something Woman (Kill Bill) and Black Middleaged Woman (Jackie Brown).
The obnoxious, manic fuck is just cynically ticking off different demographics, so now we get Black Male Slaves.

He never ruins a movie for me, in fact, I've enjoyed a lot of his movies, but he always feels like he's trying too hard. I can always feel him acting and he's never 'fun' to watch.
Somebody earlier mentioned James Woods. I always support the casting of James Woods and it would make up for how Woods missed out on being in Resevoir Dogs cuz his agent turned down the part without consulting him.

JUST as good as Waltz was. I could have just as easily seen HIM winning the oscar that Waltz won. But the academy loves them some 'fresh' faces for their supporting actor oscars, so it was Waltz who got the nom and win. Decaprio? I don't hate him as an actor, just resent him for taking up all of Scorsese's time... time that would be better served working with De Niro, of course. QT can't do much wrong, save for Death Proof, but even that was a ballsy, noble faillure.

I think he's pretty good, but yes, he really needs to lighten up for a couple of movies. The frowning, tortured, chin-stubble guy seems to have shown up for most of his movies since Gangs of New York. While I know nothing about this movie, I would guess a Tarantino movie is always going to let an actor have some fun, no matter the subject matter.
As for Pitt in Basterds, I thought he was a lot of fun, and he was playing completely against type. And while his speech to the troops would've been much better if it wasn't basically shown in the trailer in its entirety, it was still nice. For me, the biggest laugh in the movie was when after saying how well he can speak Italian, he drawls out "Bonjeeorno".

Once you get the joke: he was playing a bad actor in a bad WW2 movie. The entire film was a winding together of two different types of WW2 movies: the art house "serious" film and the revenge fantasy (like the original "Inglorious Bastards.") As Tarantino cut more rapidly between the two streams of events, they began to blur. When Waltz was finally face to face with Brad Pitt, Waltz' performance became broad and silly--he had fallen into the "other" cinematic world. A wonderful conceit. Tarantino knocked it out of the park.

I may have brought this up here before, but I seem to remember back before Attack of the Clones that there were rumors that DiCaprio would be cast as Anakin. Fanboy types were unhappy at the idea of the "pretty boy" Titanic actor would play the character. Looking back, that may have worked well. While he's kind of type-casting himself now, playing the brooding, tortured young Anakin may have helped elevate things a bit. Though I can also imagine him reacting to George Lucas dialogue like Harry Ford.

It's definitely helped with his Nicholson mystique... lets him disappear into roles because nobody seems to know fuck all about the actual guy. It's pretty much the exact opposite of what Charlie Sheen is walking into post-sitcom.

I have no doubt that he's a very capable actor indeed but to me it seems like he's being perennially miscast (usually by Scorcese in a bid to secure a reasonable box-office opening). He's usually OK, usually better than you'd expect etc in certain films but as a result of this miscasting we often get Leo frowning like an angry 12-year-old in place of depth, grit or weight. That's not fair to him and certainly not fair to the number of actors that could have been better placed in the central roles in films like The Aviator, Shutter Island, Gangs of New York etc. He worked OK in Inception, which seemed to play to his strengths, but usually DiCaprio's inclusion is a signal for some of the most hamfisted acting you'll see on screen in place of subtlety and understatement. And I reckon he's capable of much more than that.

I remember Leo was in talks to play Hans Landa the Jew Hunter before Christophe Waltz got the role. So this could be not trying to miss out on a good role again. I thought Pitt was very good in Basterds even if I didn't love the movie like everyone else. It was good, but I just didn't love it.
But I'm excited to see Leo in this. Hope it works out.

Yeah, no shit Harry, as did almost everyone who's actually read it, because I'm pretty sure it's in the actual prose description.
Di Crapio would be a terrible choice for this great role; thankfully, this will probably be as stupid and unfounded a rumor as Lady Gaga for the part of Lara Lee (Candie's sister in the script). Internet waffle.

Geez, THAT actually would have been great. I've always liked Beatty, but he was always a control freak who had to be over everything as writer/director/producer. Would have been really interested to have seen him in that role that had him guided by another person's hands-especially Tarantino.
I liked Carradine, but found him wildly overrated by critics/fans in the role. I think he gave a pretty mannered/affected performance.

I remember shortly after seeing 'Pulp Fiction' for the first time (with several of my high 'high' school buddies in a crowded movie theater after smoking a j in the parking that) that an persistant thought began slowly creeping into my head. Well, two thoughts actually. First, that the movie I just saw may very well have been the best movie I had ever seen, and secondly, that the only way it could have possibly been any better were if Robert De Niro had been in it! Which character? Who knows? Maybe Mr. Wolf. Maybe Butch. Maybe one written especially for him. But the point being, IF QT fucked up with 'Fiction' it was only in NOT casting Robert De Niro. And apparently QT realized this, for in his folow-up he did just that, only in a much lesser movie, and in a throw-away role no less. BUT, my fellow geeks, imagine if you will, IF it were Boddy D. in the Max Cherry role instead of Robert Forster? Ah, what could have been... sure, sure, Forster was great in the role, and it was great to see the dude from Alligator in a starring role again, BUT De Niro would have nailed that shit! And as result, 'Jackie Brown' would have been a worthy successor to 'Pulp Fiction' instead of the bloated, least re-watchable film in QT's cannon.

I could see Daniel Day Lewis playing him. I really like this character. Very unique and a awesome good guy. You just know the man does not like wickedness. It will be interesting to see what Waltz does with him.

Completely wrong. Robert Forster's was probably the best performance in Jackie Brown, which is by the way, QT's best film after Pulp Fiction. Forster WAS Max Cherry, and I love the fact that QT tries to revive careers of actors that he admires. He is one of the best directors at casting his roles IMHO. And Leo is a damn fine actor as well. I don't always buy his tough guy roles in say, The Departed but watch his performance in Revolutionary Road and tell me the guy can't act.

... provided by his being allowed to make himself scarce. Is he an intellectual? Is he a vapid twit? Is he respectful of others, or is that sense of propriety he exudes a small window into the blackened soul of a haughty cunt? He's clearly still coddled like the child star he once was, although until he goes on a Bale rant and verifies my cynicism, he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Was Robert Forster good in the role of Max Cherry? You bet. Is there anyway in this world or in the next that he would have been better than De Niro in the same role? Hell no! And back to my origional point: QT HAD De Niro- who by his own ommision, would have played ANY character QT offered him, yet casted him in one of the films least memorable roles! Borrowing from Dennis Green, De Niro was who QT thought he was- and he let him off the hook!!!

That lazy cunt has been coasting in those horrible Fockers movies for years. Foster was absolutely terrific in JB and I'd rather see a hungry, grateful character actor in that role than a phoned-in performance from De Niro. That said, De Niro's supporting performance on Jackie was the only decent thing he's done post Heat/Casino.
As for Jackie Brown itself, I'd say that the line between those who love it and those who don't separates the true film lovers, the ones who respect Tarantino's talents but don't gobble his cock, from the fanboys who just want to see Tarantion do 'cool' dialogue and endless pop culture references all the time. Jackie Brown is an immensely rewatchable film with a mature perspective that changes as you get older, and probably is his best work.
(note: Django is in part a great script because, for the first time ever, Tarantino doesn't use any pop culture references whatsoever - although that's hard to do anyway, given the historical period - and also writes a linear story for the most part, proving he can do these things if he wants to. It reads like more like a Western novel than the usual mash up he does).

And I actually think Jackie Brown is one of, if not the best of Tarantino's films.
Forester is great as Max Cherry. And subtle as all fuck.
Deniro's always been overated as far as I'm concerned. Certainly he's had some great roles, I'm not denying that. But I'm sorry Deniro4prez, but I don't endorse your opinion on this.

I remember before Kill Bill came out, that Tarantino was talking about a few films he wanted to do:
1) the vega bros movie
2) Inglorious basterds, although at the time I believe this was going to be more like The Expendables (but set in WWII) and he wanted to get Arnold, Sly, Willis, Van Damme, Segal, etc all into one movie.
3) 500 Lashes. Which he said was a western where Samuel L Jackson played an ex-slave, and convicted murderer who is given a presidential pardon in exchange for him riding around the west and killing the 10 most wanted men in america.
I haven't read the Django script, and I don't want to be spoiled so I'm not going to. But I was just curious if anyone knew if Django is a modified version of 500 Lashes, much like how Inglorious basterds evolved so much over time, or if this was an entirely new idea.

Warning Spoilers!!!!! for those who have seen it (which I hope is not very many?) But Not sure why but the memory I have most about it is the scene with SLJ and Bobbie D in the van right before Bobbie D gets offed and SLJ is trying to fig out how he just got screwed and the camera just sits on SLJ's face and just sits there and sits there and sits there while SLJ thinks to himself..It was almost like I could see the wheels turning in his brain..I just love that scene for whatever reason. End Spoilers!!!!..but yeah I remeber when that movie came out..out of all my friends only 3 of us liked it. Some down right hated it...my one friend said the only thing he liked about it was Chris Tucker and after he was no longer in the picture, it went down hill fast, that he couldnt find one redeming quality about it...I'm like wth?? I think the others after watching R Dogs and Pulp Fiction they were expecting something of that ilk. I should get the ones I still associate with to rewatch it again all these years later.

If I remember correctly, Tarantino spoke of adapting Elmore Leonard's 40 Lashes Less One and mentioned Sam Jackson in the lead role. The novel is about 2 inmates who pursue Arizona's 5 most wanted men in exchange for their freedom. I haven't read the Django script so I'm not sure if there are any similarities between the two projects other than both being westerns. But thinking about that particular rumor reminded me of the glorious mid 90's when I would use AOL to scour the net for any news of Tarantino while daydreaming about how awesome the new Star Wars trilogy was going to be. :D

listen here, you fuckin' turd... 'Jackie Brown' was QT's 'Heavens Gate' (or for you more contemporary fucks, 'Gangs of New York). Beautiful to look at, hard not to find something to admire, but ultimately hollow as your fuckin' head! To say that 'Jackie Brown' was better than 'Pulp Fiction' is the same as saying 'Heavens Gate' is better than 'The Deer Hunter'. Go fuck yourself. Hell, even the soundtrack was dissappointing! What the film needed was more De Niro, and in another more prominent role. Whether it be the Max Cherry role, the Sam Jackson role, hell, even the Pam Grier role! He would have nailed that shit too, as he proved with 'Stardust'! PERIOD. And douch bag, this was BEFORE De Niro began phoning it in. He was just two years removed from Heat/Casino, and that same year (97') he turned in probably his last GREAT performance in 'Wag the Dog'. So in other words, POSER, the man was still in his prime! And to say, with a straight fuckin' face no less, that Robert Forster (or fuckin' anybody EVER) could have out-ACTED the legend himself (in his fuckin' prime), in a role he would have no doubt owned? Go fuck yourself! And then wash the cum out of your mouth, you fuckin' stooge!

Not sure if anyting extra he would had brought to Max Cherry....Dont see any faults with Robert Forster's performance as Max, another fav scene of mine is him listening to The Delfonic's "Didn't I Blow Your Mind This Time"

Jackie Brown is the shit! I wish QT would do at least one more similar film before he retires. I love that scene where Ordell talks the Chris Tucker character into getting into his trunk. Then you have that crane shot over the fence into the junkyard and we watch from a distance as Sam Jackson opens the trunk and pops him twice. Just a nice, subtle, semi-disturbing murder scene. <p>
Definitely watch it again if you haven't for a while.

Deniro was perfect as Louis and would not have OWNED the Max Cherry role any better than Forster did. Secondly, anyone who doesn't think Jackie Brown is one of QT's best; most mature and assured films, is a cinematic retard. Go watch Death Proof and shut the fuck up!

I agree, thats a fantastic scene! I always love in movies and tv shows when actors and directors can really sell me on the idea of the wheels turning inside someones head.
Jackie Brown also has a bit more substance than most other Tarantino films.

Granted, in a very general sense there are some common elements - black slave freed to become a bounty hunter of wanted men - but that's about all. Django, for fear of spilling spoilers, is a very different type of story. It's possible 40 Lashes may have hatched the idea for Django in Tarantino's head to start with. Then again, he was also talking about doing a biopic of John Brown the slave emancipator, riding around the South and killing plantation owners. It may be that all these vague story ideas collapsed into one.

I'll be looking forward to this one.
I actually almost didn't see Inglorious basterds in the theatre, because the trailers did nothing for me. But a friend convinced me the movie would not be at all what I expected. I'm glad they did, as IG was phenomenal, either 1st or 2nd favorite Tarantino flick, and thats no small compliment
I'd probably rate them:
1.Jackie Brown
2. Inglorious Basterds
3. Pulp Fiction
4. Kill Bill vol 1
5. Resovior dogs
6. Death Proof
7. Kill Bill vol 2
But the top 3 are all so neck in neck its tough to say for certain.
I really admire pulp fiction, and especially recognize the enormous impact it had on cinema. But I find I get a lot more out of rewatching Jackie Brown. Its the kind of movie if I catch it on tv, and only plan to watch 10minutes of before going to do something else, I'll find somehow I ended up watching the whole thing.
The other thing with Pulp fiction is it got so much exposure when it came out, and as a teenage film geek at the time I must of watched it dozens of times. I just can't really get any more out of it at this point that I haven't already. Its a great stylish thrill ride of cinematic art, but it is fairly on the surface, where as Jackie Brown has a lot of nuance and deeper resonance, especially as I get older.

Turd, as a QT fan, I'm glad you enjoyed his 1997 misfire 'Jackie Brown'. Nevermind the fact that anybody other than QT's name appeared on the film, you would have no doubt dismissed it as the bloated, albeit interesting mess that it was. And that, fuck face, is what makes you a POSER. Insofar as De Niro is concerned, my point remains: stick him the Max Cherry role, and now we're talking 'Gangs of New York'; another brilliantly bloated mess of a film, but one in which had one trully great, mesmerizing performance (Day Lewis as the Butcher, naturally) that elevated the entire film to water-cooler status. Nobody walked out of that movie clamoring about the fucking convoluted story, or the clumsy, adolesent acting from Decaprio and Diaz... Nope. Only that in that mediocre, long as fuck film, Daniel Day Lewis kicked all kinds of ass! And THAT is what could have saved 'Jackie Brown'. And THAT is where QT fucked up. And that is your ass being handed to you.

I'd be praising the hell out of it. I loved it at the time it was released and I love it now. And this coming from someone who was pretty fed up of all the rampant, OTT Tarantino praise in the mid-90's, usually by kids who didn't know all the past films he had pillaged ideas from. So your assumptions are completely wrong.
Whatever De Niro would have been like in the role of Max Cherry is irrelevant, because Foster was note perfect in the part. Therefore, other actors could have done different takes on the character, but not a better take. And that's a crucial point. Also crucial is the fact that the other two leads were phenomenal (arguably Jackson's best ever role, too), that the film was tastefully directed, had a terrific script, kick ass soundtrack, etc. Everything was at a high level, so it was not a film depending on a single great performance to elevate it above mediocrity.

I do agree that gangs of new york is terrible. But then I'm in the minority that thinks that most of scoreseses film are pretentious.
Regardless.
You're overlooking a key point about Max Cherry and Jackie Brown.
The entire theme of the movie is about people who are passed their prime, and forgotten.
jackie and max are both people who life moved on without them, relics of an earlier day. Its not an accident that Tarantino cast two actors who did all their best work in the 1970s and had not really done any signifigant work since.
Look at the supporting cast QT built around them Deniro, fonda, SLJ, Michael keaton. He was coming off the hype of pulp fiction. Everyone wanted to work with him. He could easily have gotten 2 a list actors to play max and jackie. He choose two actors he admired from his youth. 2 actors brought with them not just the ability to play the roles right, but who brought with them a whole package of history with them, as actors.
You are right in your position in that if deniro played Max it would be a completely different movie. But it wouldn't be the right movie, the entire point would be lost. it would just be a deniro crime thriller, a star vehicle.
I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the movie more, nothing anyone here can do about that.

I haven't read the script so I couldn't say whether he's right or wrong for the part.
I do agree though as someone said above that Leo has a very specific cadence and rhythm to the way he speaks when acting which would work very well with the way QT writes dialogue.
I know apparently the character is suppose to be much older. But I think sometimes really interesting characters arise from someone being cast at a different age or appearance then what is on the page.
Like Benecio del toro in the usual suspects. That character was originally planned for dean stockwell or someone like him.
Christina hendricks on Mad Men's character Joan was suppose to be a rail thin old spinster, with a stick up her ass.
Even current doctor who Matt smith is really interesting to watch as a guy in his mid 20s playing an old curmudgeony man.
So I think dicaprio could be good in this.

Rebel, I appreciate your take on the casting choices made by QT in regards to 'Jackie Brown' (hell, maybe you're on to something, I dunno?). But me personally, I don't completely agree with your assesment. QT has made a carreer of casting 'forgetten' relics from a forgone era (Travolta, Keitel, hell, even Bunker). And 'Jackie Brown' was certainly no exception. But- and here's the kicker- he also has made a carreer of writing phenomenal parts for supporting characters for A-list actors (Willis, Pitt, etc.). And if I'm QT (with an admitted man-crush on Rober De Niro), with said individual chomping at the bit to be in your next film, seems to me a better part could have been awarded to him? As in one of the two male leads! You got the best actor ever, and you give him the part of bumbling, dim-witted, ex-con, errand boy Louis! In other words, you don't land Daniel Day Lewis for 'Gangs of New York' and cast him in the Neeson role. You just don't do it!

Whoa ... hold on ... hold on ... whoa ... I mean ... uh ... whoa ... um ...
Just gimme a minute here ... wow.
Uh ...
Well ... hmmm ... uh ... whoaaaa ... uh ... yeah ...
Hold on.
Just a sec.
Okay ... wow. Shit ... this one's a doozy.
Where to begin ... ?
RAGING BULL
THE DEER HUNTER
GOODFELLAS
A BRONX TALE
THIS BOY'S LIFE
CAPE FEAR
AWAKENINGS
BRAZIL
BANG THE DRUM SLOWLY
MEAN STREETS
THE GODFATHER, PART II
1900
THE LAST TYCOON
TAXI DRIVER
ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA
MIDNIGHT RUN
HEAT
CASINO
THE KING OF COMEDY
JACKIE BROWN
Okay, granted he hasn't been so great recently, but HOLY FUCK DO YOU SEE THAT LIST OF PERFORMANCES HE'S GIVEN? THE MAN IS A FUCKING LIVING LEGEND. HIS PERFORMANCE IN RAGING BULL MAY WELL BE THE GREATEST IN CINEMA HISTORY.
CINEMA HISTORY.
CINEMA. HISTORY.
CINEMA.
HISTORY.
OVERRATED??? SOME GOOD ROLES???? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND??
CHOPPED.

QT is doing pre-damage control on the controversial nature of the material...as much as QT tackles difficult themes and events in his films, slavery in america is the one thing everyone wants to forget and makes people uncomfortable, and especially with the liberal use of the word "nigger" in the film, I'm sure Leo is just some solid insurance for this movie to make sure it...
casting Leo makes no sense given the way the character is written, first of all he's older, second he's played as an extremely flamboyant, womanizing heavy, with a very specific souther flavor, which Leo has never played and probably isn't capable of pulling off, at least not as much as a solid character actor, which is what the part needs...I'm sure after Will Smith passed QT scrambled to shoehorn a star into the movie...why else would we JUST NOW be hearing about this news and not around the time of the Will Smith rumblings weeks ago??? its obvious QT needs an A-lister in the movie as insurance and didn't have Leo in mind when writing the part.

...and hence is going to slightly ruin his own movie because he's not casting the movie, but casting the marketing/the trailer/the poster/the tabloids, etc...im not saying the movie will be bad, not at all, im saying it wont be as good as it CAN be because of this

I hadn't heard that. I knew there would need to be some re-writing, but hoped they'd come to an understanding. Curiously, my biggest problem with the script was the treatment of his wife, who was too passive and accepting of her fate. Trust me: black women will not be pleased, and I figured Jada would give Tarantino an earful. Wouldn't have been hard to fix, though...a couple of different facial expressions, a line of dialog, a single action at the end of the film could fix it.

http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie-news/10649/leonardo-dicaprio-to-join-quentin-tarantino-in-django-unchained/
It doubts Smith will sign on, noting how long it's taking. Probably wants too much money, and too much rewriting. Substitutes mentioned are Idris Elba, Jamie Foxx and...Chris Tucker. I hope that last part is a joke. Tucker is a moderately talented guy who lucked into "Rush Hour" and can't make any other movies without lowering his "Quote" (at least that's my take on why he doesn't work. He doesn't dare appear in a flop). Jamie Foxx could do quite well, but Elba would be the real gold here.

Really excited about this project. 'Basterds' was QT's best since 'Fiction', and really interested to see how he is going to follow that up. That being said, I think it's a crime that only a few 'obvious' names are being mentioned for the title role (are there REALLY only three or four black actors in that age range working today???). Will Smith would have been interesting only in that it would have enabled him to play against 'type' for a change. But Jamie Fox? You've got to be kidding me! Why not go with an unknown 'black' actor? There simply has to be one! And build a strong supporting cast around him. Sam Jackson seems to be locked, as does Waltz (that dude is gold- wife dragged me to 'Water for Elephants'- he was even platinum in that train wreck!), so seems to me the strong supporting cast is already taking shape. QT's the man, and if anybody can find new talent (or forgotten talent), it's him! Now, that being said, I believe a strong supporting role for Robert De Niro is in order. Nobody this side of Billy Bob Thornton can play backwards redneck like Boddy D. (Capefear)! Yep. That's it. Recipe for success.

and I realize that this is going to sound crazy but there is a part of me that feels that Micheal Jai White can fit right in, in a exploitation movie kinda way in that type of role. Thats assuming this is going to be an exploitation type of movie..but if Im wrong correct me. Anyway but yeah I def say Idras def top pick for me.

He's too physically imposing. While he's a decent actor, his real strength is that he is the best martial artist/actor combination in a long time, if not ever. QT would have to rewrite the entire script to play to his strengths. So...love me some MJW, but it'll never happen.

He is a one note performer only capable of pulling off an over the top performance as a frightened, confused, man-child having an emotional breakdown.
He is not worthy of the roles he gets and the talent he gets paired with. Leonardo DiCaprio is the godfather of Shia Labeouf's career.

Okay granted, I think I may have overstated my case on deniro, I will in my defense say I was suffering from heat stroke when I wrote that comment.
But choppah you made your case well with a lot of hard evidence, so I'll give you this one.

I'm asking as a legit question and not to be facetious (sp?) I'm just trying to picture what this character is suppose to be like?
Like Brian Cox?
Gene Hackman?
Robert Duvall?
John Slatterly? (of mad men)
Sam Sheppard?
John Terry (from LOST)

But I'm going to stick with Idris Elba as my first choice. The guy should be a huge movie star by now, for his work on The Wire alone
Josh Holloway to, I can't believe that guy isn't plastered all over movie posters yet.

was the heavy set lawyer in "The Insider" (coincidentally one of QT's fav movies), the onew who yells "WIPE THAT SMIRK OFF YOUR FACE!!!!" to the tobacco guy, he's been in quite a few movies and would be light years better than Leo.
the problem with Leo is he's too one note and brings too much movie star baggage to a role that is way outside his range...maybe im wrong.